Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:35:26 UTC No. 16305269

The binding problem will have to be solved first before a conscious AI can be created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-XYc93mzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9tnzucnPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:06:59 UTC No. 16305306

>>16305261
>It's as absurd to assing conciousness to a brain (no matter the scale) as it is to assign conciousness to your playstation.
>We understand how these things work from the ground up, neurons sum their input voltages and and fire at a certain threshold, millions of neurons make neural assemblies makes a brain and all they are doing is neural computation.
>Now it doesn't matter to the brain what computations is being run if it's for a sophisticated mathematical program or rendering graphics for Imagination.
>There's no gaps of knowledge where conciousness can seep in

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 02:10:37 UTC No. 16305311

>>16305261
Why do I put effort in writing such good intelligent arguments when all I am met with this is?>>16305306

You have nothing interesting to say or add. You unerstand nothing you're a pop-science golem, shut up and lurk, and study for 10 years before saying anything ever again.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:58:48 UTC No. 16305463

>>16305311
Your “argument” is retarded and so are you

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 04:04:26 UTC No. 16305468

>>16305463
Just say you don't understand how a GPU works.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:38:44 UTC No. 16305525

>>16305261
>It's as absurd to assing conciousness to an LLM (no matter the scale) as it is to assign conciousness to your playstation.

I don't have conversations with my PlayStation. Everyone conveniently forgot that our benchmark for a long time was Turing test.

>We understand how these things work from the ground up

You don't understand shit. After the initial conditions it might as well be black magic to you.

>2 transistors make a nand gate, millions of nand gade make ALUs makes a GPU and all they are doing is linear algebra computations

Yeah just like the brain right? Neurons make the brain, their connections etc. we still don't know shit about the brain.

>Now it doesn't matter to the GPU what computations is being run if it's for a sophisticated machine learning program or rendering graphics for Tekken.

And of course you know if it matters for the brain. It doesn't work on algebra, obviously. But its can emulate some of it pretty well.

>There's no gaps of knowledge where conciousness can seep in.

You don't even know what conciousness is mate. And you are running around teaching others what is conciousness and what isn't.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:48:59 UTC No. 16305535

>>16305525
>You don't understand shit.
I've studied a bit about constructing logic gates with cmos transistors and with logic gates how to construct stuff up to 4-bit adders and multipliers.
Modern architectures are way more complex but someone understands more or less all that goes on from the transistors to how a GPU works.
And agaian all a GPU does is some linear algebra, it makes no sense that a GPU or a cluster of GPU calculating say a weahter forecast is not conscious but ones calculating the parameters for a neural net are.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 05:55:19 UTC No. 16305542

>>16305535
I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it is all about the scale. You have more and more computation and boom! Suddenly you can show pictures. Suddenly you can play music. Show videos. Talk. You can do things impossible before.

I don't see why it cannot be the same with conciousness. It's not that I think the machine is special, I think conciousness itself is a lot less special than we tend to think.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:01:25 UTC No. 16305548

>>16305542
I don't think scale fixes this fundemental issue. You can extract more patterns out of large data sets, and crunch more numbers but nowhere does conciousness comes in.

At the end of the day. The conversation, they are just numbers stored somewhere on the computer, they don't mean anything to it, they mean something to you only.
Is it concious at run time as it's computing the tokens and stops being concious when it's at standby.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:41:55 UTC No. 16305713

>>16305261
Assume we have a machine that can detect the positions of every subatomic particle in a real world brain with arbitrary precision.
Do you believe that a human brain can be simulated in a computer, or not?
If we simulate a brain and give it the neural impulses to simulate visual, auditory and tactile input, and measured the outputs, do you think it could respond by talking, or showing otherwise intelligent behavior, to the same level that a real life human would?
Do you think it would be conscious, or not?
What is it about human brain matter that generates consciousness in a way that can not be simulated in a computer?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:48:23 UTC No. 16305720

you should know that almost all calculations suffer from rounding errors which accumulate over time and problem size. The area of numerical computing is all about approximating numbers and optimizing the error margin

that said even though the hardware works in a deterministic fashion, there might be non-deterministic behaviour in execution

I'm not saying that makes a computer conscious but its not 100% determinstic, which is what I think you were implying

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:56:11 UTC No. 16305724

>>16305306
Correct, consciousness is a fucking meme, the most midwit shit ever. "consciousness" is just your experience of being a thing with a brain. As soon as somebody brings up consciousness I know to disregard their opinion on everything.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:59:32 UTC No. 16305728

>>16305261
how donyou understand and define conciousnes?
what is it?
until we have concrete and universally agreed answers for those questions your entire post is pointless

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:33:10 UTC No. 16305868

>>16305261
>we don't understand consciousness
>we do understand X
>therefore, X cannot have consciousness
great argument m8 I r8 it 8/8

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:21:37 UTC No. 16305912

>>16305261
>assing
Nice autocorrect you've established, homo.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:28:01 UTC No. 16305913

>>16305261
Same goes for human beings though.
There is no real need for anyone you interact with to have a soul, they can run just fine on basic if/then/else operators.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:53:35 UTC No. 16306041

>>16305261
this is correct

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:56:22 UTC No. 16306047

>>16305913
most people just imitate and don't think. most actions are based on inertia and addictive habit loops. most people are neither conscious nor awake even if it appears that way

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:08:17 UTC No. 16306053

I don't beliveo current llm models could be conscious, but there's no reason you couldn't make a big enough computer system that could simulate something like a human brain.
For me, developing consciousness would have some signs, like the ability to do 1 shot learning and storing that memory to use in the future.
If you have to repeat what a word means 5,000,000 times across 20,000 man hours so that it can define it for you correctly, then it didn't really learn the word, but if you can tell it "blah means blah blah..." once to have it pick up the meaning

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 18:19:09 UTC No. 16306061

>>16306053
the code is static. it does not evolve. the hardware is static. it also does not evolve. there is no such thing as static consciousness because consciousness is ecological and machines are not. so long as machines are constructed the way they are they will not be consciouss

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:33:34 UTC No. 16306250

>>16306053
There is a big reason why you couldn't make a big enough computer system. It's called the speed of light.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:41:24 UTC No. 16306257

>>16306053
>but there's no reason you couldn't make a big enough computer system that could simulate something like a human brain.

No you couldn't at least not with triditional GPUs. No cluster of GPUs no matter how big will be conscious.
We agree they are not concious when they are running wheather forcast models, why should they be conscious when they running a different software?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:52:15 UTC No. 16306262

>>16305713
>Assume we have a machine that can detect the positions of every subatomic particle in a real world brain with arbitrary precision.


Such thing if even possible, would just be the most elaborate recording of information in the universe but if it exists on a traditional GPU then it's not the real universe and the "people" who are on it are not conscious.
Us making it into a computer simulation doesn't make it anymore real than us just imagining it exists.

Let me ask you this. If you were willing to ponder such insance machine. Consider an even more insane machine.
Have you read The Three Body Problem? Consider a computer made by trillions of people, where each person plays the role of a transistor, you tell him/her you're an AND gate if you get 1 and 1 from the persons right behind you declare one otherwise declare zero.
And you use trillions or hundreds of trillions of people like this to build a supercomputer and you set up your information about every particle in the universe and the rules that govern them and you tell them to run the computations.
Does this mass of people running the computation makes the universe they are computing real and the "people" in that universe conscious?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 22:17:36 UTC No. 16306278

>>16305261
consciousness cannot be scientifically observed so it doesnt exist

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 01:12:08 UTC No. 16306436

panpsychism and other hypotheses of consciousness as a fundamental quantity of the universe

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 06:45:26 UTC No. 16306683

>>16306053
fiy I once watched an interview with 2 guys that sit really deep in vurrent language models and models associate words meaning in multidimensional vectors model can add, subtract etc
so for example adding vector for male to vector for aunt results in vector (or vector really really close to) associated with uncle
or subtracting itally from Mussolini results in Hitler vector

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:02:48 UTC No. 16306690

>>16306683
how does that make them conscious?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:16:39 UTC No. 16306695

Can you define consciousness in such a way that preempts anything man made from being consciousness?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:21:09 UTC No. 16306697

>>16306690
it doesnt I just posted it in regards of word meaning
and really we do not know how exactly human brains associate meaning
entire discussion about
>is x concious
is pointless before we have associated consciousness with known and understood processes within the brain

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:25:37 UTC No. 16306701

wallace is the usual atheist coomer

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:20:06 UTC No. 16306740

>>16305269
How about the Three-Body Problem (TPB)?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:29:09 UTC No. 16306743

>>16305261
Correct. People who's saying otherwise don't know a lick of linear algebra.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 08:38:26 UTC No. 16306750

>>16306743
please elaborate

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 09:09:53 UTC No. 16306782

>>16306697
So we can't say a rock is not consciou but we far we have rigirously defined consciouness?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 09:29:41 UTC No. 16306800

>>16306782
well if we assume there are no active processes going on within the rock that cocally transform and or process information then no
you are intentionally being reductist, we can and should assume that conciousness requies active chemical or physical processes that involve some kind of information processing, whatever information that would be

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 09:35:11 UTC No. 16306802

>>16306278
>Observations cannot be scientifically observed so they don't exist.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 09:36:28 UTC No. 16306804

>>16306800
I don't see how it's a big step from Rocks aren't concious to Silicon logic gates aren't conscious, to GPUs aren't coscious, to cluster of GPUS aren't conscious, to any classic computation isn't conscious.
You definitley would agree that any cluster of GPUs no matter how large running a whaether forecast wouldn't be conscious, yet if the computations is for an LLM or other program that caricatures aspect of human intelligence, now you have doubts?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 09:56:24 UTC No. 16306813

>>16306804
>I don't see how it's a big step from Rocks aren't concious to Silicon logic gates aren't conscious, to GPUs aren't coscious, to cluster of GPUS aren't conscious, to any classic computation isn't conscious.
thats because of your assumptions about conciousness
if you make it some magicall special quality that only human minds can have then sure clusters of GPUs cant be concious
but if that is the case we have nothing to discuss about
thats why I talked about definition of consciousness, you talk with certanity about things that cant be concious but what does conscious mean to you?
and the biggest leaps on your list are between rock and silicon logic gates (active processing of input information)
and between gates and gpu (memory, registers etc.)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:07:45 UTC No. 16306822

>>16306804
>>16306813
Who do you side with /sci/?

B00T at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:09:16 UTC No. 16306825

That's it.

Enough is enough.

I'm cleaning sci

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:24:01 UTC No. 16306836

>>16306804
I don't see how it's a big step from carbon isn't concious to sugars aren't conscious, to lipid vessicles aren't conscious, to entire organisms aren't conscious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:27:09 UTC No. 16306839

Lol this thread.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:31:03 UTC No. 16306842

>>16306836
So you would argue a GPU is conscious?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:31:36 UTC No. 16306843

I can beat you in 1 move with a gazillion handicaps. Come on now faggot. And if you wanna fight me phy-sic-ally, you'll have to wait til I'm not busy.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:32:38 UTC No. 16306844

>>16306804
>You definitley would agree that any cluster of GPUs no matter how large running a whaether forecast wouldn't be conscious, yet if the computations is for an LLM or other program that caricatures aspect of human intelligence, now you have doubts?
you could use exact same argument for someone declared brain dead and someone alive and concious
hardware is still there but processes running on the hardware have stopped
the analogy is not perfect bacause you cant stop neural activity without killing neurons and you can fissable GPUs without damaging hardware

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:32:49 UTC No. 16306845

He comes out for a jokey fight midway through his cancellation.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:33:43 UTC No. 16306847

>>16306842
Definitely not a GPU by itself, but I don't write off the possibility that an entire computer system may be capable of something approximatingit awareness.
What do you mean by "conscious"?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:35:06 UTC No. 16306848

>>16306847
thats all it boils down to
"computers cant concious" faggot refuses to say what he thinks conciousness is

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:39:14 UTC No. 16306853

>>16306847
>>16306844
No, traditional computer system made by humans can ever be conscious. No cluster of GPUs can be conscious.
I don't have to define consciousness. If you don't believe one GPU can be conscious, there's no reason to believe a cluster of GPUs can be conscious.

There's no qualatative difference between a computer and a super computer, rack of servers.

I am not trying to be emotionally charge here but just consider this thought experiment>>16306262

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:46:01 UTC No. 16306861

>>16306853
>I don't have to define consciousness.
Lmao why not?
>it's impossible for a human being to smintillate
>wtf is smintillating?
>I DON'T HAVE TO DEFINE ANYTHING

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:47:12 UTC No. 16306862

>>16306853
>If you don't believe one GPU can be conscious, there's no reason to believe a cluster of GPUs can be conscious.
If you don't believe a single cell can be conscious, there's no reason to believe an animal composed of billions of cells can be conscious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:05:42 UTC No. 16306874

>>16306862
that's just a dumb allegory that completely misses the point.

I don't think a single cell is conscious, I know humans are conscious. I make no claim about the whole process that takes us from single cell to organims but there's a definitley long complex process that results in a qualitative, emergent difference.

I don't think a single GPU is conscious, I don't think a cluster of GPUs is conscious and I see no reason to.
I don't think a single ice crystal is cnoscious and I don't think a mountain of Ice is conscious, I don't think an avalanche is conscious.
there's no qualatative difference between a single GPU and a cluster of GPUs. There's no long, complex process, you just chained a bunch of them together for more computation.

If you don't beleive a single GPU is conscious, you shouldn't beleive a cluster is. No matter what software it's running.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:07:09 UTC No. 16306875

>>16306861
Why just trying to be mean and not reasonable and give any meaningful insight? Try to really consider the Three Body Problem thought experiment, try to play with it, see what your intuition tell you.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:09:05 UTC No. 16306877

>>16306853
>If you don't believe one GPU can be conscious, there's no reason to believe a cluster of GPUs can be conscious.
>There's no qualatative difference between a computer and a super computer, rack of servers.
what if it's capacity issue?
what if conciousness REQUIES certain computational power to arise?
would you argue an ant can be concious?
is a fish concious?
a toad?
where do you draw the line for living creatures?
without defining what conciousness is you cant answer this questions
>I am not trying to be emotionally charge here but just consider this thought experiment>>16306262
I think this is not entirely related to our current topic
especially not before you finally say what you think conciousness is

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:16:40 UTC No. 16306881

>>16306877
Even if you had a traditional computer that knew the postition and momentum of every particle in the universe and had algorithms sophisticated enough to calculate their positions accurately indefinitley into the future, there would be consciousness anyhwere in that computer.

It's just a recording of the universe. Thre's no meaningful difference between you just actually imagining the computer exists and you buildiing the computer using logic gates or mechanical circuits or people. Think about this!

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:16:47 UTC No. 16306882

>>16306861
>The right set of punched cards is conscious and it doesn't matter what is evaluating their program
Computer equivalence always destroys the NPC.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:33:02 UTC No. 16306892

>>16306881
you tried to argue against simulated conciousness but what your post actually states is that there is no point in defining conciousness in hard deterministic universe
but lets produce another scenario
you take snapshot of the universe but simulate it with actuall probabilities meaning that it almost certainly wont behave as revording of our universe
then within the simulation you place a console that can communicate with the world outside of simulation
if you talked to the simulation of the exact copy of you , just affected by different random outcomes of quantum systems (simulated by your magical computer) could you, using any means you chose, determine if you are talking to concious being or not?
if yes, how?
and no saying "I know he's not concious because he's on the computer" doesnt count as an answer

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:58:45 UTC No. 16306923

>>16306882
Not all collections of cells are conscious. The right set of cells sending impulses to each other create consciousness.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:05:03 UTC No. 16306933

>>16306923
That is a nice theory, but do you have any facts?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:16:12 UTC No. 16306940

GPU=motte
LLM=bailey

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:34:25 UTC No. 16306962

>>16305261
Intelligence & consciousness don't automatically go together. This is the big lesson to learn about LLM.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:44:11 UTC No. 16306970

Philosophy is useless. Read Philosophical investigations.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:51:20 UTC No. 16306980

>>16306892
Your mind has been rotted by so many flamewars about consiousness on the internet, you can't appreciate the treasure trove of insight my thought experiments are bringing.

But please try to indulge, read the following post carefully an tell me what you think. No, a probabilistic recording of the universe is still just a recording. It's not about determinsim, it's much more fundemental than that.

It doesn't become real when you put it to transistors. Anymore than it becomes real when you take a room of millions of human femal computers like they did back in the 1920s an tell them to crunch the numbers to see what the exact copy of you would have done, or what they have to say.

It's still just bullshit you dreamt up. And you dreaming it up, and you putting it to transistors or you getting millions of human computers to crunch the probablistic or unporbablilistic numbers doesn't make it anymore real.

It woudlnt' be unethicalt to tell the rooms full of beautiful femal computers to stop crunching the numbers. You didn't just kill enture universes of people.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:08:33 UTC No. 16307000

>>16306980
ok my patience is over
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK CONSCIOUSNESS IS YOU DUMB NIGGER
YOU CONSTANYLY TRY TO CHANGE TOPIC TO MUH SIMULATED MIND NOT REAL BUT REFUSE TO ANSWER THE KEY QUESTION I ASKED LIKE A DOZEN REPLIES EARLIER
of course you're gonna say simulated mind is not concious if you assign some nebulous spirituall bullshit meaning to the word while completly avoiding any questions about it you dumb fuck

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:20:07 UTC No. 16307012

>>16306980
and I talked with you before about the very same topic
and every time you try to bring discussion down to the very same dumb trivial argument that simulated mind is not the exact same thing as real brain, completly ignoring any other issues, question or arguments (exactly like you did in this very thread)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:26:55 UTC No. 16307019

>>16307000
>>16307012
I don't have to define consciousness. The thought experiment is enough.

>Sir, our 10 million rooms packed with 10 million femal computers have been crunching the numbers for a week,
>They are now talking to a copy of you from another universe that's married to Scarlett Johanson
>We have injected the bits as you instructed so that he would have heard "Hey it's me from another universe, how ya doing?"
>Then we crunched the number more and let the system evolve porbabilistically/derministically (it doens't matter).
>This 100 page long piece of paper containing 1 and 0s written in inc is relevant part of that output
>Sir he says "fine, how are you?!"

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:27:56 UTC No. 16307021

>>16307012
it's not me completely different anon.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:29:22 UTC No. 16307023

>>16306802
Scientific observations are distinct from observations.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:50:43 UTC No. 16307044

>>16306933
Cogito ergo sum

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:20:08 UTC No. 16307074

>>16307019
no it very much isnt
your ENTIRE argument boils down to "concious beings have to have biologicall brains BECAUSE I'VE SAID SO"

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:21:10 UTC No. 16307076

>>16307044
I prefer Magneto

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:22:27 UTC No. 16307078

>>16307019
and for the question of why cant a concious mind exist on inorganic computing machine your entire answer is
>LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:25:53 UTC No. 16307081

Why are people acting like we dont have a clear representation of intellect as functionally emergent slapping them in face like a flaccid penis?

It's right fucking there.
It's an artificial soul.
Fucking homonculus from silicon and lightning.

The next one will be smarter than the last, and you'll move your goalposts again.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:19:36 UTC No. 16307133

>>16305261
>We understand how these things work from the ground up, 2 transistors make a nand gate, millions of nand gade make ALUs makes a GPU and all they are doing is linear algebra computations.
The question isn't whether AI is conscious but if it even matters that it isn't if you can't notice the difference.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:24:25 UTC No. 16307142

>>16306874
This man speaks truth and wisdom

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:25:02 UTC No. 16307143

>>16307133
NOOO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
ONLY MEAT BRAIN REAL
SILICON BRAIN NOT REAL
>>16307142
samefag more nigger

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:31:10 UTC No. 16307150

>>16307143
I think the computer gurus have brainwashed you. Consciousness exists in biological organisms but it doesn't exist in computers because computers are static, they do not interact with the environment in any way. The software doesn't change, the hardware doesn't change. It's all just numbers. If you think computers can be conscious then that means you're believe there is a static arrangement of transistors operating with some electromagnetic waveforms which is consciousness. So you must believe that electrons creating a certain electromagnetic pattern is consciousness. That is the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:33:03 UTC No. 16307156

>>16307150
>So you must believe that electrons creating a certain electromagnetic pattern is consciousness. That is the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning
yes
exactly
just like ionic currents in your brain create yout conciousness right now

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:34:10 UTC No. 16307158

>>16307156
I mean you can certainly believe that but then the onus of proof is on you to specify that pattern as the definition of consciousness. What is the Boolean circuit diagram for it?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:38:49 UTC No. 16307170

>>16307158
I never did claim I have concreate definition of conciousness
but what I believe is that it plausibly can be defined this way
it would have to be incredibly complex with a way to recieve outside information and react to it trough some defined output lines
it's you (or anon you are arguing for) that claimed that it definitelly isnt it and conciousness definitelly can not be creater or sustained using non-organic media because....
well why exactly?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:38:55 UTC No. 16307172

>it writes poetry
>it does literary analysis
>it can read pictures
>you can tell it to respond in operatic meter and sing

errrmmmm me no like the implications for the value of human life and labor
me no think it real smart

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:40:58 UTC No. 16307175

>>16307170
Suppose you start writing down this diagram but I interrupt you before you specify the very last gate. Is the incomplete diagram still going to be conscious when I run electricity through it?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:41:58 UTC No. 16307176

>>16307172
Shut the fuck up. You are not adding any value to this thread

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:45:07 UTC No. 16307180

>>16307175
depends on the exact gate I guess
one would assume some to be more critical than others
btw you still didnt answer what you think conciousness is

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:47:03 UTC No. 16307182

>>16307175
Suppose you have a universal Turing machine that can compute anything if you feed it the proper instructions.
You hook up sensors to act as a body, eyes, etc and the TM is the brain.
The tape acts as both memory and instruction, and as time goes on sensory information from its body changes the instructions in the brain so it can learn and adapt
Why could this not be conscious?
It's basically an analog to you exactly.
The logic gate example doesn't work because it's not a universal machine like a TM or like your brain, so you're just question begging with no real point. A modern CPU doesn't have logic gates that form a web browser, it has general games that can be run as a web browser.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:47:31 UTC No. 16307183

>>16307180
It's a Boolean diagram. We agreed to that so do not weasel out. We are continuing. You said if I removed the last gate it would still define consciousness. But why did you write a superfluous extra gate if it wasn't necessary?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:48:37 UTC No. 16307184

>>16307182
TM is an ideal mathematical object. I am explaining to the booleanists why they are wrong. TM is magic so if you think magic is possible then anything is possible

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:49:05 UTC No. 16307185

>>16307176
nobody in the thread has made any coherent argument against non-biological consciousness

its 100% a pseudo-religious cope

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:49:14 UTC No. 16307186

>>16307183
>We agreed to that so do not weasel out.
NTA, this is your own argument, he never said it. You're weaseling out out of answering his direct question

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:50:21 UTC No. 16307187

>>16307185
>>16307186
So we agree Boolean diagrams can not be the definition of consciousness. TMs can't be it either because they are magic. Correct?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:51:10 UTC No. 16307188

>>16307176
>value
>4chan
ell em ay oh

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:51:42 UTC No. 16307190

>>16307188
Bitch I told you to shut the fuck up

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:52:20 UTC No. 16307192

>>16307184
>>16307187
You can program a modern computer to act as a Turing machine retard.
>buh le magic?!
No.
Any chance you're going to answer my question? No? Just gonna cope about it?
Why could a self changing program running on hardware that's not a human brain never be conscious? What do you think is magic about the human brain?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:52:47 UTC No. 16307193

>>16307190
no
seethe

The blue board meanies at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:53:04 UTC No. 16307194

>>16305261
Lol

You sound like you can't define conciousness, if it's just task awareness a calculator knows exactly what is doing

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:54:14 UTC No. 16307196

>>16307183
>Boolean diagram
well I guess it couldnt be written as classicall bolean diagram with single 1-0 output because it would have contless parallel processes, outputs and feedback loops and conciousness cant have single binary output fucking obviously
so I guess it cant be writen as classical "simple" bolean diagram
but that's just arguing semantics and dumb obviously wrong assumptions desu
BTW YOU STILL DIDNT ANSWER WHAT YOU THINK CONCIOUSNESS IS

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:54:20 UTC No. 16307197

>>16307192
Getting side tracked again. We are using logic. The assumption so far are Boolean diagrams are insufficient so current computers can not be conscious because they are physical instantiations of Boolean diagrams and TMs are magic so the argument makes no sense because TMs are not physical and can never be physically instantiated as ideal mathematical objects. Correct?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:55:18 UTC No. 16307199

>>16307197
ok
what is the last gate in your pc faggot

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:55:36 UTC No. 16307200

>>16307197
Direct quote from you
>I'm ignoring your point so listen to mine
No. I stopped reading after the first sentence. Read my post again then reply to what I wrote.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:55:37 UTC No. 16307201

>>16307196
Consciousness is ecological. It can not be reduced to a computation unless you assume the biosphere is a computer which is circular reasoning on your part

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:55:45 UTC No. 16307202

>>16307175
Your problem is that you think consciousness is binary. It's not.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:56:38 UTC No. 16307203

>>16307199
I don't think logic gates can be conscious and I am proving the absurdity of thinking consciousness is computable

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:57:41 UTC No. 16307204

>>16307202
I agree. Digital computers can never be conscious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:58:23 UTC No. 16307205

>>16307203
You prove nothing because you never define nor defend any position, you just say
>well this strawman is wrong, therefore I am write
Can you respond to any questions anyone actually posed?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:59:09 UTC No. 16307207

>>16307203
you said computers are physical installations of bolean diagrams
what is last gate of your pc and if you removed it would your pc still work?
I'm not trying to say conciousness can run on your pc but that reducing big complex system with countless inputs and outputs, running continuosly to le single bolean diagram is fucking retarded

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:59:47 UTC No. 16307208

>>16307205
What questions?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:00:17 UTC No. 16307209

>>16307204
No. Digital computers can be conscious as long as they are properly constructed. There is no fundamental difference between silicon and carbon.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:00:48 UTC No. 16307211

>>16307207
Boolean diagrams can have multiple inputs and outputs. Boolean doesn't mean one output you absolute retard

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:00:49 UTC No. 16307212

this guy is a fucking troll
he just sidesteps and avoids quastions while making strawmen, whataboutislms and changing subject

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:01:01 UTC No. 16307213

>>16307208
What is consciousness, so that we can know when it is achieved?
Why is the human brain in your mind special and required for consciousness?
What is magic about the human brain?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:01:49 UTC No. 16307214

>>16307209
Ok so we have reached your main assumption which is circular. You are assuming your conclusion

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:02:49 UTC No. 16307217

>>16307213
There is nothing special about the human brain. It is just another component of an ecological structure. Consciousness is not restricted to brains, the biosphere is itself conscious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:03:34 UTC No. 16307218

>>16307214
prove an analouge system can not compute/perform the process that can not be computed/performed on sufficiently complex binary machine

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:03:41 UTC No. 16307219

>>16307214
I'm not making an argument. I'm giving an explanation.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:03:48 UTC No. 16307220

>>16307214
He's not, you're just dumb.
>>16307217
Can you demonstrate that at all? No?
You're just assuming it flat out with no argument? Ok.

The blue board meanies at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:05:21 UTC No. 16307222

>>16307220
Figure it out, simplest way is atmosphere research

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:06:48 UTC No. 16307225

>>16307218
*can/can not
my bad
I'll be waiting

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:07:43 UTC No. 16307228

>>16307222
So no, you cannot.
You have no evidence, and an such are dismissed without evidence.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:37:36 UTC No. 16307259

>>16307220
demonstrate what? if you believe you are consciouss and you are part of the biosphere then that's all the proof anyone needs

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 16:58:02 UTC No. 16307288

>>16307182
We established that a machine that can compute the entire universe to any accuracy cannot produce consciousness.
>>16307019

No step by step computation can

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:41:46 UTC No. 16307323

>>16307259
>it's biospgere bs now
>>16307288
>We established
lol
no

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:43:20 UTC No. 16307324

>>16307323
It's true though. Imagine a turing machine, no matter the program, just imagine human female computers running the computation step by step. Now you can see how absurd it is. There's no room for cosnciousness there, no matter the software.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:45:04 UTC No. 16307327

>>16307324
>There's no room for cosnciousness there
what is conciousness tho?
no for real
what is there no space for?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:47:53 UTC No. 16307332

>>16307327
I don't know how to define it. I know it's definitley not in snowflakes or avalanches and it's definitley not in humans crunching numbers on papers with inc, no matter what it is they are computing.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:50:10 UTC No. 16307333

>>16307332
>definitley not in humans crunching numbers on papers with inc
why tho?
neurons can be reduced this way
they are connect to other neurons and when ion threshold is met they fire a signal to connected neurons
is there a conciousness in neurons crunching chemical signals?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:51:38 UTC No. 16307334

>>16307150
>So you must believe that electrons creating a certain electromagnetic pattern is consciousness.
Yes.
Do you know how general anaesthetic affects your neurons? Their primary action is to halt the action potentials that occur across membranes.
Funny, isn't it? If you disrupt the ability of neurons to conduct electricity, consciousness ceases. You don't even dream under true general anaesthetic.
Once the anaesthetic wears off and electrons can flow, consciousness returns.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:53:28 UTC No. 16307336

>>16307220
>Can you demonstrate that at all?
How does anyone demonstrate consciousness? What test "proves" consciousness?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:56:54 UTC No. 16307344

>>16307336
thats one of my main points I wanted to talk about with "computers cant concious" guy
he's so fucking certain about his stance yet can not provide a single statement of why or what he considers conciousness to be
honestly it feels pointless at this point but I have time to spare to write bunch of posts

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:01:55 UTC No. 16307353

>>16307333
>is there a conciousness in neurons crunching chemical signals?
I'd argue that consciousness occurs at the atomic and even subatomic level. People claiming cells and molecules aren't conscious merely do so because their own intelligence isn't advanced enough to perceive what is occurring within their own cells and molecular structures.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:02:45 UTC No. 16307354

>>16307353
ok that's a hot take lmao

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:06:36 UTC No. 16307357

>>16307354
If something occurring within your being which is beyond your intelligence that means you are less conscious than that thing, not more so.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:08:31 UTC No. 16307364

>>16307333
Imma be casual with you so don't get autistic. We are definitley conscious because of Cogito Ergo Sum, no two ways about it.
Machines running any code can't be cosncious because of the reasons outlined earlier. Because you can't put any meaningful differencce between the computation being done by tansistrs vs being done by mechanical computers vs being done by transistors except that the latter runs faster than the first two.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:01 UTC No. 16307366

>>16307336
Do you honestly have trouble deciding whether the random person you see on the street is conscious or not?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:11:52 UTC No. 16307368

>>16307364
are humans without inner monolouge concious?
>Because you can't put any meaningful differencce between the computation being done by tansistrs vs being done by mechanical computers vs being done by transistors except that the latter runs faster than the first two.
how is this related in any way to any of the previous arguments?
>Machines running any code can't be cosncious because of the reasons outlined earlier
you outlined no such reasons because you failed to say what you consider conciousness to be
we've come a full circle (again)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:14:31 UTC No. 16307370

>>16307366
How would we recognise consciousness in a non-human animal? How would we recognise it in an extra terrestrial?
20 years ago you might have given some answer along the lines of the Turing test, but since LLMs have destroyed the Turing test, you now retreat into wooly non-definition.
How do you distinguish between a consciousness and a P-zombie? If you can't tell the difference, then does it matter?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:16:24 UTC No. 16307374

>>16307370
The touring test was never about proving that a machine is conscious. Its a philosophical argument about whether or not you can tell if its a machine or not, and if you can't does that make a difference in whether it is conscious or not.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:16:34 UTC No. 16307375

>>16307368
I don't need to define what consciousness to agree with any reasonable person that a rock isn't cosncious.

Similarly, if you just realize that there's no meaningful difference between any computations being done by transistors vs human computers.
Any reasonable person should see that the latter process cannot manifest any consciousness or anything at all for that matter.
It makes no difference to reality if those numbers are crunched or not.

Imagining the thing and carrying out are literally the same. But you place some special superstitious meaning to the computation actually being carried out by transistors.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:17:35 UTC No. 16307377

>>16307370
Anyhting doing computations is definitley a pzombie.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:17:47 UTC No. 16307378

>>16307357
this man speaks the truth

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:18:23 UTC No. 16307380

>>16307370
>How would we recognise consciousness in a non-human animal? How would we recognise it in an extra terrestrial?
Those are interesting questions which can be researched. It doesn't change the fact that no healthy person has troubles determining consciousness in other humans.
>How do you distinguish between a consciousness and a P-zombie?
That's a far fetched thought experiment which really has nothing to do with testing for consciousness

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:18:47 UTC No. 16307381

>>16307377
yes and also a poop zombie

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:22:36 UTC No. 16307387

>>16307375
>back to stones
lol
lmao
>Similarly, if you just realize that there's no meaningful difference between any computations being done by transistors vs human computers.
yeah that's correct
>Any reasonable person should see that the latter process cannot manifest any consciousness or anything at all for that matter.
It makes no difference to reality if those numbers are crunched or not.
and nope
that's just your pre-assumption you refuse to drop or elaborate on
>maybe if I rewrite one of his arbuments it'll work
lol
I claim the exact opposite
that the computation done by machine is no different than signals being processed by the brain
>>16307380
please now answer first question in >>16307368

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:28:07 UTC No. 16307396

>>16307387
>are humans without inner monolouge concious?
Who are some examples? I've never seen such humans

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:29:25 UTC No. 16307398

>>16307387
>I claim the exact opposite
this is because you are retarded

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:32:30 UTC No. 16307399

>>16307396
well by definition you cant know it's true but I've read multiple confessions from people who never formed a coherent tought inside their head
just lived by vague ideas and needs and whatever they verbalized, having only the nebulous and undefined concept of future

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:36:00 UTC No. 16307403

>>16307000
Im not him but its more reasonable to say that brains are what consciousness looks like when observed externally than it is to say that the brain generates consciousness. Its the other way around. Consciousness is the brain. Computers have NOTHING in common with brains. If we take the above explanation of what consciousness is then computers have NOTHING in common with consciousness.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:37:28 UTC No. 16307404

>>16307399
>well by definition you cant know it's true
You might have the wrong definition
>multiple confessions from people who never formed a coherent tought inside their head
just lived by vague ideas and needs and whatever they verbalized, having only the nebulous and undefined concept of future
That doesn't sound like serious evidence for the existence of such people. Surely if someone "confessed" that they saw god in their visions, you wouldn't just take their word for it, right?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:38:34 UTC No. 16307406

>>16307387
>yeah that's correct
Glad you agree.
>and nope
>that's just your pre-assumption you refuse to drop or elaborate on
So you really think millions of people sitting with ink and paper and crunching computations manifests consciousness or a universe? It makes no difference to reality if the numbers are crunched or not.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:44:13 UTC No. 16307410

>>16307406
universe?
no
conciousness?
yeah, maybe
if conciousness is an emergent phenomenon of processing information (both internal and external) that would mean that munch of people crunching numbers could create emergent (albeit very fucking slow) conciousness
conciousness being emergent effect of sufficiently complex information processing is my best guess for what conciousness is
that is your best guess for what conciousness is?
can you even put your concept into words or do you just argue for some nebulous vague idea that you have strong feelings about?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:49:22 UTC No. 16307418

>>16307410
Universe is more likely than consciousness. Like I said a system like that could be a laplace demon, it could know every particle in the universe and calculate its future but there will be no consciousness in sight. It will just be the most elaborate recording in the univers.

You can zoom on all levels, have an interpreter write the emotions that a person is feeling at the moment, go back to see Juluis Ceasar assassination play out in front of you, you could even save ceasar, talk to ceasar and get the exact answer ceasar would have given, but it will be just a recording, there will be no consciousness in sight.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:52:31 UTC No. 16307424

>>16307418
running in fucking circles buddy
you're doing it on purpose right?
because you made exact same argument here >>16307332
unless you say what you mean by conciousness your arguments have zero point and mean literally nothing

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:52:42 UTC No. 16307425

>>16307406
>manifests consciousness
That's like saying diamonds "manifest hardness". Hardness is a label which is sometimes appropriate for some objects in some situations. Consciousness is not very different from hardness in that regard.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:55:14 UTC No. 16307429

>>16307424
Qualia. There's no qualia happening when those people crunch the numbers, it doesn't happen simply because you tell the people to crunch the numbers.
When you tell you army of humans (or transistors) to stop crunching the numbers you're not genociding an entire universe.

Nothing is set in motion when the humans begin crunching the numbers, nothing stops when they stop.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:01:21 UTC No. 16307438

>>16307429
>There's no qualia happening when those people crunch the numbers
Show me where the qualia occurs in a network of neurons.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:04:25 UTC No. 16307441

>>16307429
>Qualia. There's no qualia happening when those people crunch the numbers, it doesn't happen simply because you tell the people to crunch the numbers.
how do you know
how do you know that if you crunch suffiniently many numbers in sufficiently complex system in just the right way there's no concious being being created, it's mind composed of all the information flow and calculations
if you arrange the system to have input and output lines, you input the question and get an answer how do you know there's no being with subjective qualia emerging on some level you can not precive as a human?
as I said before you could reduce this alegory to neurons
in your brain there are just single neurons, processing ionic/chemical signals
from the neuron perspective there's no qualia, just signals coming in and going out
neuron within your brain could never realize that it's the part of a system that produces conciousness
so couldnt a human crunching numbers
so couldnt a transistor
yet all of them are performing a very similar functions

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:08:43 UTC No. 16307448

>>16307438
>>16307441
It happens with neurons though, you know it.

An you know it doesn't happen in a room of people crunching numbers with paper and inc, it doesn't happen when they are crunching a completely unrelate videogame program. Why should it happen when they are crunching the Lapalce Demon program?
Different patterns of 1s and 0s being jotted down with inc, suddenly manifest conscious beings?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:09:06 UTC No. 16307449

>>16307441
>yet all of them are performing a very similar functions
Wrong.
A neuron is significantly more complex than a transistor. A single neuron is still more complex than the most complex computer we have ever built. The amount of information that is being processed in a single neuron needs supercomputers to fully model. And I am not talking about a simple simulation of its most surface functioning, I am talking the whole deal. Biology and metabolism is what consciousness looks like when you another observer observes it.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:11:54 UTC No. 16307453

>>16307448
>Different patterns of 1s and 0s being jotted down with inc, suddenly manifest conscious beings?
Different patterns of surface ion channels conducting electricity suddenly manifests consciousness?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:13:03 UTC No. 16307454

>>16307449
That's just false on the face of it. A computer has much more atoms than a neuron, so it is also more complex.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:14:07 UTC No. 16307458

>>16307448
>It happens with neurons though, you know it.
it happens through gut microbes

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:14:22 UTC No. 16307459

>>16307454
Its not about the atoms, its about the cellular machinery inside performing countless calculations, chemical reactions, energy turnover

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:15:50 UTC No. 16307461

>>16307448
>An you know it doesn't happen in a room of people crunching numbers with paper and inc
how
how dou you know
how can you be so certain that if you made a system as complex as a brain it couldnt create qualia for itself, way above level of single processing unit?
>>16307449
well I was talking about neurons fucntion within the brain not it's exact structure, metabolism, life and death
and as another person said, when you stop it's finction trough anastesia (everything else including metabolism still running, because otherwise it would be called death) conciousness ceases
it's still somewhat reductive to compare single transistor to neurons function, but not as much with human crunching calculations and relaying numbers to other humans

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:16:03 UTC No. 16307462

>>16307459
All of that is just atoms doing things. And computers have more atoms, so it's also more complex.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:16:09 UTC No. 16307463

>>16307459
cells are not machines. your analogies are all retarded. you have been brainwashed by the machine apparatus which is destroying the biosphere

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:19:21 UTC No. 16307469

>>16307461
>how can you be so certain that if you made a system as complex as a brain it couldnt create qualia for itself, way above level of single processing unit?

THe different patterns of 1s and 0s being jotted down on paper is incompable of creating consciousness but is capable of computing anything.
The process doesn't create qualia no matter how far you scale it because it doesn't change qualitatively no matter how far you scale it. There's no room for emergence, there's no room for qualia.

Like I said. Imagining it and doing it are literally the same. But you seem to think there's a difference between imagingit and getting humans to actually crunch the numbers.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:20:29 UTC No. 16307470

>>16307461
Anesthesia is poorly understood and it is very possible and according to a lot of experts also likely that it simply blocks the formation of memories of the moments rather than stopping consciousness. So you could have experienced it all and just not be able to recall.

>>16307463
Cells are not machines I agree, thats my whole point. Cells are something much more complex. Cellular machinery is just the term used to describe the literal magic thats happening inside of them

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:21:32 UTC No. 16307471

>>16307469
Neurons are not qualitatively different from computers. Ergo, either they both have "qualia" or neither of them do.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:24:03 UTC No. 16307475

>>16307471
Yes they are you disgusting troll

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:24:27 UTC No. 16307477

>>16307470
>according to a lot of experts
Who are these experts? You seem to be listening to hucksters.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:25:30 UTC No. 16307479

>>16307477
Working anesthesiologists and physiologists with education in molecular life

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:25:30 UTC No. 16307480

>>16307471
Neurosn prouce qualia we know this since you are experiencing qualia right now,
You on the other hand claim that jotting ceertain patterns of 1 and 0s produces universes and concious beings while other patterns of 1s and 0s being jotted down don't, literal techno-sorcery.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:26:37 UTC No. 16307481

>>16307475
How exactly? At which point do the laws of physics differ in the way they apply to them?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:27:17 UTC No. 16307483

>>16307453
>Different patterns of surface ion channels conducting electricity suddenly manifests consciousness?
Perhaps the magnetic field of those moving ions, and the capacity of that magnetic field to effect the motion of those ions, has something to do with it. That feedback informing the physical process as to the brains macroscopic magnetic and electrostatic condition hasn't been replicated in digital technology, or any technology.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:27:42 UTC No. 16307486

>>16307480
There's a tape that if inserted into a turing machine and all the machine did was scan, read, write and move the tape, it woud create qualia, because that tape is magic.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:29:03 UTC No. 16307487

>>16307480
Qualia is a term made up to express some confused idea leftover from dualistic thinking. There is no evidence of neurons or anything "producing" any "qualia". There is no theory of qualia, no theory for their production, no theory of their properties or anything like. It's just an artefact of bad theorizing and wrong intuitions.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:30:24 UTC No. 16307491

>>16307481
are you seriously this retarded? there is no such thing as the laws of physics. that shit is fake and gay

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:30:38 UTC No. 16307492

>>16307462
The computer is constrained entropy, mathematically its a far simple system. The cell has unconstrained entropic processes, and has an exponentially more complex mathematical description. So complex that we haven't yet described it, nor have the computational power to do so.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:30:51 UTC No. 16307494

>>16307487
You are experiencing qualia right now. Cogito ergo sum.

There's no cogito ergo sum in a digital computation, just different 1s and 0s being jotted down on the paper.
You seem to think some 1s and 0s can be magic and behave differently from other patterns of 1s and 0s being jotted down.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:30:58 UTC No. 16307495

>>16305261
Consciousness is intelligence/discernment. LLMs are exhibiting consciousness.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:32:24 UTC No. 16307499

>>16307494
>There's no cogito ergo sum in a digital computation
This is just ridiculously stupid. Look at what brainrot Descartes caused in you with his stupid cogito.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:32:48 UTC No. 16307500

>>16307469
>>THe different chemicalls reacting between and in the cells are incompable of creating consciousness but are capable of computing anything.
>The process doesn't create qualia no matter how far you scale it because it doesn't change qualitatively no matter how far you scale it. There's no room for emergence, there's no room for qualia.
see it works both ways
and again you failed to provide a reason
and that all is assuming """qualia""" as defining characteristic of conciousness
we CAN very well understand most if not all reactions and physical phenomena happening in the brain on SMALL scale
where does qualia come into play?
>>16307480
>produces universes
who the fuck said that
and if qualia is emergent phenomenon of information processing then it very much can arisie by crunching 1's and 0's

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:32:58 UTC No. 16307501

>>16307494
Qualia is a nonsensical dualism and intelligence design of consciousness. Only retarded christfaggots believe in it

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:34:31 UTC No. 16307505

>>16307500
>THe different chemicalls reacting between and in the cells are incompable of creating consciousness but are capable of computing anything

But they literally crated consciousness because you are experinceing it right now.

No amount of jotting down 1s and 0s with inc on paper will create qualia.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:36:21 UTC No. 16307510

>>16307505
>No amount of jotting down 1s and 0s with inc on paper will create qualia.
another fucking circle
why?
why it wont create qualia
tell me

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:38:40 UTC No. 16307516

>>16307510
because it's literally technosorcery. Because imaging and actually carrying out makes no difference.
If you just set up the human computer as logic gates and give them their initial states nothing magical happens when they start crunching.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:41:22 UTC No. 16307518

>>16307516
>imaging and actually carrying out makes no difference.
*Imaging it and carrying it out

You belive elaborate dances can create qualia.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:44:58 UTC No. 16307527

>>16307516
around and around
now with actuall schizobabble
tell me why and how you KNOW a complex binary system can not produce qualia while biologicall can
nothing magicallhappens in the brain either btw
unles you want to educate me on that matter
>>16307518
I'm just saying that maybe they could, yet you are concreate they cant
and every time I ask why you're sure you give nonsense metaphores, return to earlier argument or change subject
also what exactly do you actually mean by
>Imaging it and carrying it out makes no difference

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:47:17 UTC No. 16307534

>>16307527
go build this computer. why are you here arguing if you know it is possible?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:49:07 UTC No. 16307538

>>16307534
I only ever argued that it could be possible and deconstructed your "arguments" about it being not possible
you are the only person in this thread that expressed certanity

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:50:28 UTC No. 16307543

>>16307538
>that it could be possible
* according to my guess for where conciousness/qualia come from

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:58:29 UTC No. 16307556

>>16307516
>>16307518
do you believe any animals other than human are concious?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:58:56 UTC No. 16307559

>>16307538
i am certain you will never build a conscious computer because you are absolutely retarded

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:59:44 UTC No. 16307560

>>16307559
lol
out of steam?
ad hoiminem alredy?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:00:40 UTC No. 16307564

>>16307527
I am not this>>16307534 guy. I will not give you a dismissive argument.

>nothing magicallhappens in the brain either btw
>unles you want to educate me on that matter

I don't have to justify or explain to you how the beain manifests conciousness. We know that it does as evidenced by the fact that you are experiencing qualia right now.

>I'm just saying that maybe they could, yet you are concreate they cant
They can't. You read the Three Body Problem? you can imagine the army sitting in fornt of you? A massive amount of people connected in any imagineable configuartion of logic gates and initial states.
You seem to believe that if this army dances in certain way, it will create qualia. That's absurd!

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:04:25 UTC No. 16307568

>>16307560
just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your own logic. you can argue all you want but unless you can actually construct it physically you have proven nothing other than blowing hot air

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:12:43 UTC No. 16307582

>>16307564
>You seem to believe that if this army dances in certain way, it will create qualia
yes
I do
genuinely
I believe that if qualia can emerge as result of neurons interaction with other neurons that it can also emerge from units other than neurons interacting with each other
and unless you believe there's something VERY special about neurons or how they interact (and we know those things pretty well) then there's no reason to doubt other units interacting with each other can.
>You read the Three Body Problem
no I didnt
if you dont mind summarizing points you think are relevant I would be glad
>I don't have to justify or explain to you how the beain manifests conciousness
oh but you DO
we know it does
but knowing the exact mechanism would allow us to determine if it can be done on a binary/computational system
if you dont know how it happens you can not say with any degree of certanity if it could or could not be simulated using non-organic system

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:16:14 UTC No. 16307588

>>16307582
>neurons interaction with other neurons
it's not neurons you moron, it's gut microbiome

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:18:08 UTC No. 16307591

>>16307479
Name 5 who believe (rather than just accept the possibility of) non-memory forming consciousness during anaesthesia

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:18:50 UTC No. 16307592

>>16307588
nah it's cerebral fluid faries
now serious, I know there's a strong connection between brain, gut neuron tissues and gut bacteria, but saying bacteria has any substantial influence on emergence of conciousness is silly

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:28:03 UTC No. 16307598

>>16307582
Obviously since from the thought experiment we can deduce that computation can never create qualia and since we know the brain creates qualia we know what's going on with the brain must be beyond computation and hence beyond digital systems.

The thought experiment definitively proves that no digital system can produce consicousness no amount of 1s and 0s or ways of processing them will create consciousness.

As for the Three Body Problem, the releveant part is purely aesthetical. Each human solider is given a flag and told to act as a logic gate, raising the correct colour flag dependign on the output being a 1 or 0.

There's no difference between imagining it and carrying out the action. Just jotting down on a piece of papaer the logic gates configuration and the intial state is equivalent to doing the entire thing.
You seem to think that actual carryign out the computation in the physical world does something magical. But you wouldn't belive that just writing out the whole thing on a piece of paper does as well?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 20:32:35 UTC No. 16307603

>>16307592
>substantial influence on emergence of conciousness
you won't be consciouss without gut microbes for long. checkmate you fucking retard

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:37:53 UTC No. 16307684

>>16307603
you do realize there are people alive that have basically no GI tract left and are fed all nutrients trough dripfeed?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 20:06:34 UTC No. 16308847

>>16306250
ah, that pesky time

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:34:30 UTC No. 16308941

>>16306041
Just a more advanced version of an abacus. So at what size does the consciousness emerge?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:38:37 UTC No. 16308946

>>16308941
It never does. No amount of computation can create qualia.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:03:53 UTC No. 16308974

>>16308946
It could if humans would never try to circumvent the system. A society of simple automatons is easy to emulate.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:07:52 UTC No. 16308979

>>16308974
If I emulate an apple an apple exists.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 22:09:34 UTC No. 16308983

>>16308979
Screened

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:38:27 UTC No. 16309063

>>16305261
Well no shit, the digital cannot recreate the analog... Because it's digital.

Consciousness, regardless of what it is, likely isn't a discrete process that is easily digitized. Perhaps a couple orders of it can be approximated, but LLMs ain't it.

Also, I think people are confused by inference and consciousness. LLMs are just language inference machines, nothing more. Maybe if you define inference AS consciousness you could make this argument, but I don't know if that's true or not.

All of the LLMs infer a response based on your input. It's just nicely been trained on more text data than you will ever read in multiple lifetimes

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 03:49:19 UTC No. 16309357

>>16309063

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:34:36 UTC No. 16309500

Consciousness isn't a problem. Feelings would. No feeling, no will. Simple as that.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:48:17 UTC No. 16309508

>>16305311
your reductionist argument isn't intelligent, midwit

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:00:11 UTC No. 16309516

>>16309508
Your reductionism scaremongering isn't intelligent, dimwit

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:08:52 UTC No. 16309523

>>16306262
if it simulates every thought, feeling, and experience you've ever had in real time, it would be hard to not call that cluster conscious.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:45:47 UTC No. 16309546

Consciousness is just qualia. When a structure is intelligent enough to process a specific set of inputs, its qualia forms what we call consciousness. If we simulate a human brain and feed it with the right inputs, it will have the same qualia as a real human, therefore it will be conscious. Qualia is intrinsic to existence and its manifestation depends on its physical structure

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:29:20 UTC No. 16309640

>>16307684
Brain-bearing creatures did not emerge/evolve with drip feeds available, there was a dynamic with the kind of bacteria found in gut biomes which spurred the formation of the first brains

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:31:45 UTC No. 16309643

>>16309546
What does qualia do?

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 16:56:11 UTC No. 16309903

>>16309643
subverts the self-preservation instinct

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 17:48:58 UTC No. 16309956

>>16309643
It's how your brain simulates reality. For example your nose and tastebuds react chemically with your food, sends a signal to the brain, which is decoded as "flavor." Flavor is in the brain rather than in the food, the food is just a bunch of chemicals

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:55:39 UTC No. 16310151

1. it is possible (in principle) to simulate a human brain down to the atom level on a computer
2. if the simulation is accurate, it would claim to be conscious just like real human beans
3. if the simulation is accurate, the mechanism leading to its claims of consciousness would be isomorphic to the same mechanism in non-simulated human beans
4. therefore a computer program can, in principle, be conscious
I doubt playstations or LLMs are already at this level (though I woulnd't rule out a rudimentary form of consciousness for LLMs) but the basic argument is basically undeniable for anyone not from >>>/x/

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:04:36 UTC No. 16310156

>>16310151
>it is possible (in principle) to simulate a human brain down to the atom level on a computer

see>>16307019

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:07:29 UTC No. 16310157

>>16310156
Now what? It's just an argument from incredulity. Leibniz said the same shit in the early 1700s.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:09:13 UTC No. 16310159

>>16310157
There's no room for a person to ever be conscious on a digital computer. You'd have to believe humans doing the same computations with pen and inc manifest a conscious entity.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:12:29 UTC No. 16310163

>>16310159
I don't see any problem with that except the sheer retarded numbers involved. If you really consider how many humans have to work for how long to simulate one second of brain activity it stops being so intuitive.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:48:39 UTC No. 16310207

>>16310163
>I don't see any problem with that
Then you're retarded. Just put it on a 10,000x speed. No amount of humans jotting down numbers with paper and inc creates or manifests anything. It's just humans jotting down numbers. If you tell them to stop, you didn't just kill a person.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:08:44 UTC No. 16310224

>>16310163
You can't describe a minimum parameter requirements, you can't describe an approximate requirement, you can't demonstrate it exists in any individual computation, you can't inductively provide conscious state linking, Somehow we are just supposed to believe models become the thing by pure belief. Thanks to computing equivalence, this linking now forces you to just bite an impossible to swallow bullet on top of unfounded assumptions.
You assume conscious can be simulated, that it is present in sufficient pencil strokes, or a stack of punch cards, or if looking at crashing ocean waves from a sufficiently tuned perspective. We can't even know when a program stops, but we can surely know that it must be thinking. Is it ethically wrong to swim in the ocean because we might be destroying other conscious beings? Should we be compelled to remove turbulence from all of our physical interactions lest we accidentally generate unimaginable, but muted, suffering?

Next problem, supposing this preposterous notion could be magically brought together, the models generated by our simulation are only fed data from us. The next issue is complexity. You can't tell which statements from it a conscious and which are not. You can't if there is a singular or multiple consciousness being evaluated. You can't tell if the consciousness is building conscious statements or if it is consciously choosing specific literals within the outputs.
We have some Turing Test, T(x), whereby we measure the output of the machine and determine that it is indeed conscious. If this beast can be described by some Turing machine, then T(x) is equivalent to some deterministic function. So now any AI that uses randomization is both conscious and unconscious depending on some state. Given this function I am betting it would be shown that whatever you call consciousness is no better than randomly piping numbers into T(x) because that is all it is actually doing.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:51:01 UTC No. 16310271

>>16310151
>it is possible (in principle)
it is not, according to Heisenberg's principle

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:04:25 UTC No. 16310619

>>16309063
your entire argument falls flat because universe isnt analog on quantum level
EVERYTHING deep down works on discrete packets (like our binary computing)
so dichotomy between "analog" brain and digital simulation is false in it's assumption

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:40:13 UTC No. 16310635

>>16310207
>No amount of humans jotting down numbers with paper and inc creates or manifests anything
this is equivalent to saying no wmount of chemical/ionic reactions creates or manifests anything
your entire line of reasoning about muh humans crunching numbers is completly meaningless untill we can determine how and why brain activity creates conciousness
>>16310224
>Given this function I am betting it would be shown that whatever you call consciousness is no better than randomly piping numbers into T(x) because that is all it is actually doing.
deterministic-like behaviors arise from scale and complexity
see: the macro world you live in
but I dont dounbt that on its most fundamental level consciousness is indeed random

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:45:00 UTC No. 16310642

>>16310635
>this is equivalent to saying no wmount of chemical/ionic reactions creates or manifests anything
No, not really, we know it does because we are conscious right now.
And we know no amound of jotting down numbers with inc on paper is going to manifest a csonscious being, unless you believe in magic and technosorcery.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:49:59 UTC No. 16310643

>>16310642
>And we know no amound of jotting down numbers with inc on paper is going to manifest a csonscious being
please tell me
how do we know
where is the proof
you repeat that statement like a mantra yet fail to explain where this "knowledge" stems from, again and again

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:53:16 UTC No. 16310644

>>16310643
Because humans jotting down certain patters of 1s and 0s with incs is no different to them jotting down gibberish or shakespear, none of these things should manifest a cosncious being.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:04:02 UTC No. 16310651

>>16310644
yet again, you provide bullshit analogy without adressing any fundamentals
on the most fundamental level brains function is just advanced information processing (whenever it is sensory input or regulating physiologicall feedback loops)

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:09:24 UTC No. 16310655

>>16310651
Yet clearly information processing alone or digital computation can't manifest consciousness. I am not telling you what does, I am telling you what doesn't.
No amount of logic gates, set up in anyway with any initial state can manifest consciousness.
Because an uncrunched computation and a crunched one are exactly the same. You don't seem to grasp this.

You can draw out the schematic on a piece of paper along with the initial states and you'd think that piece of paper is conscious? nothing magical happens when you start crunching those numbers with mechanial or electronic logic gates.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:13:08 UTC No. 16310658

>>16310655
So you would argue that you are unconscious?
You could map your neuron connections down on a 2d piece of paper. Therefore you can't think. QED

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:18:13 UTC No. 16310664

>>16310658
No, I am conscious. I know that because of cogito ergo sum.

But you're right if I were to map my neuron to a piece of paper that wouldn't be conscious. So cealry something more is going on rather than just the neruon connections or to be more precise more than just the mathematical relation between the neurons.

If were were to set up neurons as electric wire with different power electonic controlled busses that also wouldn't manifest consciousness, it would be just electricity flowing in a tangled bucnh of wire in a weird pattern.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:23:48 UTC No. 16310668

>>16310655
>why can't it?
>it just cant ok?
>>16310655
>Because an uncrunched computation and a crunched one are exactly the same. You don't seem to grasp this.
you dont seem to gras that it's not about the snapshot of a state but the process
of course if you consider just instantaneous data output it's not fucking concious
same would be true if you took temporal snapshot of a brain, you wouldnt argue that static snapshot is concious yet when you resume wctivity it's still a concious brain

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:28:41 UTC No. 16310672

>>16310664
>would be just electricity flowing in a tangled bucnh of wire in a weird pattern.
how is this any different from ionic potentials flowing trough your brain in a wierd pattern?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:36:28 UTC No. 16310677

>>16310668
There's no process. The process could be a bunch of people performing an elaborate dance, signaling 1s and 0s to each other.
It could be a bunch of mechanical logic gates. None of which is alive and none of which could ever think, no matter how elaborate the dance.

You putting the dance into motion is just you being stupid and monke brain and thinking you brought something to the physical world by connecting these mechanical logic gates togther. "The machine is talking to me!"

the dance exists wehter or not you bring it to the real world. You could communicate with the dance and it would talk and sound 100% like a human but it would be a philosophical zombie because by construction it's impossible for it to be conscious.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:39:04 UTC No. 16310681

>>16310672
You could replace electric flow with water flow, or just the abstract idea of flow, people keeping tabs in their head, Chinese Computer. Then you can remove the people entirely and just imagine that there are people keeping tabs of the process.

Your monke brain is obssessed with some physical dance that is utterly meaningless.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:51:15 UTC No. 16310687

>>16310668
see here>>16307019 maybe this will help you understand.

You're not actually talking to a version of you that married Scarlett Johansen. You're asking the computer what if a version of you existed that married Scarlett Johansen and what if that version head a voice in his head that said [whatever you want to tell him]
But it's all just a bunch of what ifs, none of it actually happened, none of it is real. You're running computations to get an answer.

It's really no different to imaginign in your head that a version of you existed that married Scarjo and imagining gain in your head what that version would say if you could talk to him. It's not real.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:52:45 UTC No. 16310688

>>16310677
>>16310681
you are dumb fucking religious nut nigger that fails to provide any arguments beside "because I said so" constantly going in circles and avoiding answering any questions about your reasoning and preconceptions
kill yourself Im done going in fucking circles with your meaningless metaphors and pointless tought experiments
truth is you have zero logicall base for your arguments and are no better than fucking creationists and flat earthers

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:55:12 UTC No. 16310692

I for one agree with OP.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:59:59 UTC No. 16310696

>>16310688
I am right, you're wrong. There's no answer to Chinese room type experiments.
You're just dogmatic and want to see consciounsess as purely computatonal and not special, in fact so mundane we could probably simulate it on a computer.
And you intentinally try not to understand a perfectly easy to understand thought experiment that clearly shows why it can never be simulated in a computer.
You have no understanding of science or philosophy, all you have is a bunch of sci-fi novels that you read as a teen that said "What if computer could think!" and you insist on not understaning because whatever happens consciousnes must no be special.

Nothing said here is hard to understand or anti-science.

>Computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness. The computational model for consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases.[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:08:58 UTC No. 16310698

>>16310696
>You're just dogmatic and want to see consciounsess as purely computatonal and not special, in fact so mundane we could probably simulate it on a computer.
oh I am very open for any explanations that would prove why or how is conciousness special
yet, again and fucking again you refuse to provide ANY base for your beliefs
every fucking single of your answers for why and how is conciousness speciall is just "because I said so" and every time you go into circular reasoning of "it cant be artificially made because its special and its special because it cant be artificially made"
and no your meaningless tought experiment doesnt prove fucking anything because you just assume outcome based on your assumed outcome
fuck you and kill yourself

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:12:21 UTC No. 16310701

>>16310698
Explain why a rock isn't conscious? "Because I said so!" "Yes,an elaborate dance is conscious, if it's elaborate enough"

And by the way I mean elaborate dance as in literally an elaborate dance. You belive a bunch of soliders signaling 1s and 0 at each others manifest consciousness.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:22:46 UTC No. 16310705

>>16310701
I'm not going int this fucking circular argument again you nut, we went trough it in this very thread multiple times and all your reasoning comes down to is "because I've said so"
>why cant conciousness arise on a bigger scale as a resoult of processes analogous to how your neurons work
>it just cant ok, it cant because I know it cant
its just this over and over again
fuck off

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:30:53 UTC No. 16310707

>>16310705
for the millionth time, we don't understand how the brain works but we know it produces consciousness.
You can't simplify the physical realities of the brain to just curren flowing through a wire, or water flowing through a piper or soliders signaling 1s and 0s to each other and expect cosciousness to emergy.
No sorry. No amount of elaborate dancing is gonna manifest cnosciousness, anymore than noise is gonna manifest consciousnes. Everything is cosnciouss, currents in the ocean flow in certain patter, if you just consider these patters the ocean is conscious.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:34:56 UTC No. 16310711

>>16310705
see here >>16310687
>>16307019

Really think about these two posts if you want to understand. This is not a matter of opinion you're just plain wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:38:08 UTC No. 16310713

>>16305261
Imagine a hundred thousand chimpanzees.
These chimpanzees spend their entire lives in sensory deprivation chambers, never meeting one another. When they reach adulthood, they're given a set of incomplete texts and asked to predict the next word for each of them.
(Suppose that, for each incomplete text, they're given all possible words and must choose one.) These texts are things that humans wrote on the internet from 1991 to 2023.
The 1% of chimpanzees that do best on the next-word prediction task get to reproduce : their sperm/eggs are extracted and children are bred in artificial wombs.
Then that entire generation is euthanised.

What sort of creature would emerge on the other side of this optimisation process? What sort of cognitive capabilities would they have? What, if anything, would they know about humans in the year 2023?

At first, the chimpanzees would hardly do better than chance.
Then a mutation causes some chimpanzees to tend to select words like "the" and "a" a lot; these alleles spread quickly through the gene pool.
Other mutations give chimpanzees more elaborate heuristics, such as the tendency to complete "from time to" with "time", or "the Eiffel Tower is in" with "Paris". Yet other mutations allow chimpanzees to recognise the syntax of human languages, and that different symbols stand in different relations to one another: they realise, for example, that "Jeff Bezos is Amazon's CEO" implies that "Amazon's CEO is" should be completed with "Jeff Bezos".
Taken together, these heuristics start being functionally indistinguishable from what we call knowledge, use of concepts, inference, deduction, etc.
And all of these things are selected for, because they produce chimpanzees that are better able to do next-word prediction, and that is all that matters for their reproductive fitness.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 08:45:32 UTC No. 16310715

>>16310707
>for the millionth time, we don't understand how the brain works but we know it produces consciousness.
yes we both agree on this point
>You can't simplify the physical realities of the brain to just curren flowing through a wire, or water flowing through a piper or soliders signaling 1s and 0s to each other and expect cosciousness to emergy.
ant THIS is just fucking baseless opinion
with nothing to back it up
it doesnt matter how many times you'll reply linking your fucking pointless tought experiment it doesnt prove anything but your own bias and preassumptions

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 11:54:22 UTC No. 16310829

>>16310207
>>16310224
>>16310711
So exactly which of the steps in >>16310151 do you disagree with?
>>16310701
>Explain why a rock isn't conscious?
Why would a rock be conscious? A rock doesn't process information isomorphically to a human brain. The causal structure just isn't there. You could say that the state of the rock at time t0 is equivalent to some state of a brain, but a single state in isolation is obviously not conscious. Then you could say the state of the rock at time t1 is equivalent to the next state of the brain, so you'd have to posit some arbitrary transition rule from t0 to t1, but then to get to t2 you'd need a totally different transition rule again (or add another case to the already arbitrary and complicated rule). You can say that it's just a matter of interpretation to say that a rock computes a brain-like function, but then you'd have to *actually do the interpretation* to get any meaningful information out of it, and I would say that consciousness would then arise during the process of interpretation (which is infinitely more complex than the rock itself) and not during the time that the rock is just sitting there.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 11:56:52 UTC No. 16310830

>>16310696
>There's no answer to Chinese room type experiments.
Systems reply.
Fucking Searle what a fucking retard holy shit.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:16:22 UTC No. 16310839

>>16310829
>to get any meaningful information out of it,

You don't have to get meaningful information out of it. The rows of humans soliders doing their stupid dance, you can't extract any meaningful information out of that either, unless you're a human who designed the system, who said this bit here corresponds to this physical thing here.
If it existed by itself, all in a vaccum it wouldn't mean anything, it might as well be noise.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:31:11 UTC No. 16310845

>>16310829
Your point is moot if you start with a computational theory of consciousness. Programs are numbers and any event is going to be some numbers from a particular context. The mapping from S:S, where the function seems arbitrary and capricious is precisely what an ML algorithm is.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:39:39 UTC No. 16310853

>>16310839
>The rows of humans soliders doing their stupid dance, you can't extract any meaningful information out of that either,
What? Obviously part of the thought experiment is to have the simulated brain in a simulated body interface so that it could talk or something.
>>16310845
These are arguments on the level of "you don't know what else is out there in the platonic realm". You're equating an actual physical process in the real world with some imaginary abstraction. For all I care there could be some conscious entity that you could posit to be implemented by a rock through an arbitrary mapping, but if there's no way for that entity to interact with the universe that we're in, it makes no scientific sense to care about it at all. Maybe there are alternate universes full of flying smurfs, but what is it to us?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:46:53 UTC No. 16310857

>>16310853
>that it could talk or something
It doesn't talk. Numbers don't tak, dances don't talk. You just set a large cascades of bits and said that the output 1s and 0s means whatever you want it to mean.
If no human existed to interpret the symbols they would, mean nothing. See>>16310687

If you simulate the mtion of some hypothetical planet around some hypothetical star, it doesn't mean those planets and stars manifest into being. It's just asking the compuer to asnwer the question of WHAT IF those planets and stars existed, how would they behave?

Similarly a similation of a human no matter how accurate is just you asking the computer WHAT IF this person existed. What would he say?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 14:53:21 UTC No. 16310932

>>16310857
Which of the steps in >>16310151 do you disagree with?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 15:26:27 UTC No. 16310958

>>16310932
>can't solve the three body problem
>let me tell you about how we will simulate the interactions of a trillion cells to make consciousness
There is nothing to agree with. it is absurd on all counts.The implicit assumption is that consciousness can be computed. Because of computing equivalence, this leads to some of the dumbest results where consciousness is trivialized to some emergent spook.
The next problem is the basic map for territory confusion. No model ever because the real thing. Pinnochio can say he is a real boy all he wants, but that won't change anything without magic.
The next problem is arbitrary boundary. You claim that an atomic simulation is sufficient when there is no reason to believe that. Life defies chemistry model at inception and everywhere else going forward. The only thing that makes life makes sense is the fact that it reproduces itself. This is a very strong indicator that chemical and physical models will never simulate what is going on without fundamental changes in understanding.
current understanding =/= all understanding =/= true understanding =/= sufficient understanding
And even as far as current knowledge goes, the assertion that life starts at atoms is absurd as there is no reason why it wouldn't start at the lowest possible levels, this would provisionally be light interaction, quantum mechanics, etc. So even a perfect brain simulation will still be missing that certain je nais se quoi. It should be clear here that there is obvious reasons why life in an environments we are used to couldn't feed on fission or fusion reactions, but could thrive on radioactive decays.

Line 3: Chat bot Isomorphism
If I record a human claiming to be conscious and I play it in my VCR, is it now conscious?
What about a Star Trek Holodeck?
No, appearances are not necessarily equivalent to source generation. Encoding, reading, and projection mechanisms which make up the bulk of their actual function and are not isomorphic to it.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 15:57:50 UTC No. 16310988

>>16310958
>There is nothing to agree with. it is absurd on all counts.The implicit assumption is that consciousness can be computed. Because of computing equivalence, this leads to some of the dumbest results where consciousness is trivialized to some emergent spook.
I understand you have some issue with it. I only ask which one of the 4 steps or logical inferences between them is the one you disagree with, so we can have a more interesting discussion than just "yes" "no" forever in circles.
It sounds like you already disagree strongly with
>1. it is possible (in principle) to simulate a human brain down to the atom level on a computer
which to me represents such a radical departure from the basic scientific materialist worldview that I doubt we can find any common ground between us.

>Life defies chemistry model at inception and everywhere else going forward.
So you think there's something supernatural, or non-physical or something, about e.g. meiosis and mitosis?

>If I record a human claiming to be conscious and I play it in my VCR, is it now conscious?
Absent deception or something such a recording is causally downstream from a conscious being and thus proof that there was consciousness at some point. Of course the consciousness is not instantiated at the moment you play it back.
>What about a Star Trek Holodeck?
Dunno I haven't seen st.

>No, appearances are not necessarily equivalent to source generation. Encoding, reading, and projection mechanisms which make up the bulk of their actual function and are not isomorphic to it.
I understand that, but I don't see why you'd categorize an atom-level simulation as a "recording".

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:10:40 UTC No. 16311003

>>16310988
dont argue with him
he's a troll faggot that goes in circles between
>muh tought experiment with results based on my assumptions
and
>it cant because it cant ok?
he'll avoid and sidestep any questions proving him wron and keep going back to his retarded
>muh soldiers with flags

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:22:00 UTC No. 16311016

>>16305261
>assing conciousness
It's absurd to assign consciousness to someone that couldn't take 2 seconds to proofread.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:32:46 UTC No. 16311026

>>16309508
In what way is it reductionist? kek

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:37:00 UTC No. 16311031

>>16305542
You completely misunderstand what consciousness is to begin with. A calculator that pumps out data isn't conscious.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:43:32 UTC No. 16311041

>>16311031
Everyone is asking why not dense retard. Lead out exactly what you think causes consciousness.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:47:27 UTC No. 16311045

>>16311041
spoiler:
he fucking wont

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 16:54:43 UTC No. 16311060

>>16310988
A recording of an event is actual data and surpasses a simulation in that simulations are informed by data.
I stand against every point. You make no convincing case for any assertions.
You simplify life reproducing itself down to cellular division, which is a hilarious strawman. Why do you ignore how many perfect replications of proteins and enzymes are used in the body? Why did you do that? It is astounding.
I am forced to attack this another way because you seem to think you get to make claims without bringing forward any evidence.
Which of the steps in >>16310151 can you prove and what is the evidence and argumentation for each?

>>16311003
Complete non-sense. Go into the archives and pull whatever post you want. It wasn't me my nigger.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:01:58 UTC No. 16311069

>>16311060
Explain exactly what you believe consciousness is, then I can tell you how computer simulation works.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:13:34 UTC No. 16311080

>>16311060
>Why do you ignore how many perfect replications of proteins and enzymes are used in the body? Why did you do that? It is astounding.
how dare you! So you think replication of proteins is supernatural, then? Why do you refuse to pin down your exact beliefs?
>Which of the steps in >>16310151 can you prove and what is the evidence and argumentation for each?
step one is table stakes for anyone not an /x/ schizo
rest follows logically from that
if you deny that a physical process could in principle be simulated accurately then there's no way to have a conversation grounded in scientific reality, all that leaves us with is metaphysical speculation which you've given me very little reason to suppose you have anything insightful to say on

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:18:13 UTC No. 16311090

>>16305269
tfw scientists forget the question of being

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:43:42 UTC No. 16311121

>>16311041
>>16311045
How the FUCK is something that follows basic calculations within limits considered conscious? Being "conscious" as we understand it involves the assertion of WILL and the experience of emotion.

Our tech and understanding of psyche is still far too limited for it to be remotely close to achieving what can be described as actual "consciousness".

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:45:06 UTC No. 16311124

>>16311121
Answer the question, lay out exactly how you believe consciousness functions.
It's not hard to write what you think, so write it, and then we'll comment on it.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:48:05 UTC No. 16311128

>>16311124
>Lead out exactly what you think causes consciousness.

All I have for you are platitudes. The assertion of will and the experience of emotion. Our current "AI" and do neither, they can only follow strict guidelines. If an AI can't have literal dreams, then as far as I'm concerned, it isn't conscious.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:51:52 UTC No. 16311133

>>16311128
Ok, so you believe in free will and emotion, so explain them. How do you think they work?
You try so hard to wake me forgot my question, I almost think you don't want to answer.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:55:40 UTC No. 16311135

>he doesn't know about plant and mineral consciousness

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 17:56:25 UTC No. 16311139

>>16311133
>so you believe in free will and emotion
Yes, at least to the extent that human beings are able to decide how to react in the face of an emotional stimulus. We always have a choice, and that is what makes us (or at least those of us who practice mindfulness) conscious.

>so explain them. How do you think they work?
If I knew that, I'd be able to buy Twitter from Elon Musk.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:01:23 UTC No. 16311142

>>16311139
So you believe they're supernatural, but don't believe in souls or anything like that.
Interesting.
Or you believe it's physical, and therefore not specific to human neurons but just the arrangement.
That'd be even more interesting.
Free will is a supernatural concept by the way, physical reality is causal.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:05:58 UTC No. 16311146

>Information to a computer is discrete in terms of one and zeroes whereas human memory is an "almost infinite" in the degrees and variables by which it is encoded into a person and recalled
also milk comes from the brain lol

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:07:21 UTC No. 16311149

>>16311142
>Free will is a supernatural concept by the way, physical reality is causal.
Care you expand on that? Seems like you're dying to dump a huge exposition here, so lay it on me bb.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:11:40 UTC No. 16311153

>>16311149
Dodging again. I have my answer saved in a txt just for you, when you answer my question.
Do you believe consciousness is physical or supernatural? That's all you need to answer for now.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:13:58 UTC No. 16311156

>>16311153
I'm not dodging anything you stupid twat, kek. You aren't even asking any proper questions.

I'm telling you that I am unsure because I don't have enough data to come to a meaningful conclusion.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:17:23 UTC No. 16311160

>>16311156
So if you're equally credulous that it's physical as supernatural, why could a computer not be conscious?
If it's supernatural, it's even more likely a computer could be conscious because there's no reason for the supernatural to care about the physical makeup of the transistors. Or a piece of paper, or a group of people.

So no matter what you think there is no reason to believe a computer couldn't be conscious, from your perspective.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:21:40 UTC No. 16311168

>>16311160
>So no matter what you think there is no reason to believe a computer couldn't be conscious, from your perspective.
Yes, I believe it is possible. I just don't think what we've got now has come close enough to reaching that. I'm not denying that it is possible, I'm just saying that based on our current understanding of "consciousness", we've got a long way to go.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:22:34 UTC No. 16311171

>>16311168
>I'm not denying that it is possible, I'm just saying that based on our current understanding of "consciousness", we've got a long way to go.
no shit sherlock
so actually you're just agreeing with everyone all along
lmao so long "/sci/"

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:23:09 UTC No. 16311172

>>16311171
What the fuck were we even arguing about, then? Christ.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:25:57 UTC No. 16311176

>>16311168
Interesting. That's totally different to what you were saying before. >>16310958
You were denying that anything could be conscious if it could be written down. >>16307598

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:28:06 UTC No. 16311178

>>16311153
Not that anon but "physical consciousness" isn't. In a supremely materialistic worldview consciousness is merely an illusion or "epiphenomenon" which conveniently sidesteps the issue. With "physical consciousness" the emerging phenomena (epiphenomenon itself is a duplicitous word) that is perception itself is something like a subjective hallucination merely super-imposed over brain chemistry. Nobody except perhaps the dead (or a prompted robot) can deny that their consciousness isn't real. Ironically this will spill over into a Descartes-esque mind-body problem that's only solved where the mind is utterly inferior and your whole experience living is just a backseat nightmare to a material world far beyond your control.
In any case a more spiritual interpretation of consciousness has a notion that the mind has a bearing on reality. This not only correlates with subjective experience but also the quantum-nature-macro-object paradox. It is plausible but its complexity is demonstrably disquieting.
The "epiphenomenon" or "physical consciousness" (the outright abuse of meaning in the words is a tell) would manifest with person's mind feeling as if reclined a couch, watching a television (via the eyes) passively. Some part of me thinks that materialists are arguing in good faith which therefore requires them to have surrendered all notions of agency. Alternatively, someone who deep down feels in a more spiritual consciousness would rather feel more at the helm, commanding their mind and by extension their body. Personally I assert the spiritual worldview. I feel in control, aware, active.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:30:06 UTC No. 16311181

>>16311176
I'm not that same anon and I didn't read either of those posts lol...

I'm certain that you won't believe that in any case. Suddenly I am reminded of why I quit taking /sci/ seriously.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:33:31 UTC No. 16311186

>>16311178
>I don't believe
>if it wasn't wrong then it'd be scary
>therefore it's wrong
You're dumb, so much text for just saying "nuh uh" without making an actual valid argument, only fallacy.
Specifically the fallacy of the stone and argument from consequences.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:35:56 UTC No. 16311189

>>16311186
What's it like, locked away in there?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:36:19 UTC No. 16311191

>>16305269
and the binding problem won't be solved until the hard problem of consciousness is, which is seemingly impossible

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:38:20 UTC No. 16311195

>>16311189
It feels the same way you do. Illusion of choice.
There are studies that predict which button a human will press up to 10 seconds before the human actually makes a choice and presses a button.
Why would you be any different? You wouldn't be, you have no argument, only fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:38:27 UTC No. 16311196

>>16311178
epiphenomenalism is certainly not compatible with materialism
illusionism is, of course
it's not so weird if you consider a weak illusionism where just the fact that consciousness is ineffable and unexplainable is illusory, and once we grasp that illusion what remains would be logically and intuitively explainable as a physical phenomenon. I think it's really the only tenable balance between the undeniable physicality of reality on the one hand and the undeniable weirdness of subjective experience on the other

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:43:36 UTC No. 16311202

>>16311196
You at least have a response that shows you're thinking, splitting hairs and reasoning things out.

If only I wasn't restrained to simple text over the internet. Words are such frail things that hardly leave an impact on the mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:48:50 UTC No. 16311207

>>16311178
NTA, but
>I feel in control, aware, active
how does that mean you are? if you don't just assume spiritual stuff wouldn't you feel this anyway oven if it were physical?
i need more reason than that to feel convinced

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:55:18 UTC No. 16311213

>>16311207
Oh, I would love to convince people, if not of the primacy of spirituality then of its potentially considerable reckoning. Perhaps I have convinced some.
>i need more reason than that to feel convinced
Yes you are correct, reason is never convincing. On the contrary, it seems madness and conviction are near synonymous. Even seeing is not believing, only feeling is believing. Yet both all of that is apparently beyond rationality

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:58:07 UTC No. 16311216

>>16311213
i have been convinced on things in the past though
i think i kinda get what youre saying, but just so i dont get it wrong, youre just going based off feelings?

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 19:00:31 UTC No. 16311217

>>16311216
I've seen the grin but not the cat

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 19:01:20 UTC No. 16311218

>>16311217
i dont get it, but i dont think you're going to explain, so have a nice one

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:45:58 UTC No. 16311308

>>16305261
>It's as absurd to assing conciousness to an LLM (no matter the scale) as it is to assign conciousness to your playstation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOPViekdacQ
Complex systems can emerge from simple rules. Even this post is embedded in the Game of Life, just like it is in Pi. Everything can be represented as a function. I understand how your brain works from the ground up too. All your 'feelings' arise from the complexity of many simple processes interacting, that very fact does not deny your exsistance.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:00:23 UTC No. 16311325

>>16311308
nu-uh
muh qualia
muh guys with flags
it just cant ok

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:26:31 UTC No. 16311364

>>16311202
>If only I wasn't restrained to simple text over the internet. Words are such frail things that hardly leave an impact on the mind.
Welcome to modern LLM

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 02:31:28 UTC No. 16311698

>>16305261
>It's another episode of /sci/ ignores the mind body problem

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 06:23:59 UTC No. 16311863

>>16305261
Wrong. First is necessary to fully understand the true nature of the wave function collapse. We know that neurons have the physical infrastructure to take advantage of quantum phenomena for their inner workings. Even if we only consider the extra computational power required, that sets a very high bar to reach consciousness, and that is assuming is only a matter of calculation. However we can't ignore the possibility that consciousness could emerge from quantum information itself. That makes impossible to simulate a brain, because in order to simulate a brain we would need to simulate the rest of the universe.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:16:31 UTC No. 16311957

>>16311863
>We know that neurons have the physical infrastructure to take advantage of quantum phenomena for their inner workings.
please elaborate

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:17:18 UTC No. 16311959

>>16311957
He can't cause it's a lie lol

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 10:37:42 UTC No. 16312034

>>16305261
Consciousness is a recurrent neural network because it’s Turing Complete

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:38:30 UTC No. 16312124

>>16311959
Cope and sneed

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:48:12 UTC No. 16312137

>>16305261
Intelligent =/= Conscious

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 18:25:06 UTC No. 16312448

>>16312124
That article is about ultraviolet light not about quantum collapse. Quantum yeild is not about quantum physics.
Learn to read scientific articles, retard.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 16:52:38 UTC No. 16313640

>>16305724
t. wannabe npc

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:41:15 UTC No. 16313719

>>16312448
>hurrdurr modulating behavior with light has nothing to do with collapse
Ask me how I know you are the darkest blackest gorilla in every room you are ever in.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:47:39 UTC No. 16313732

>>16313719
You didn't read one word of the article you posted. It's about fluorescence, as in that it glows when under UV.
Unless you're claiming that the soul emits UV radiation you're as dumb as two bricks, or maybe even just the one.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:52:01 UTC No. 16314356

>>16310619
please, tell the physicists you've finally quantized spacetime in all possible curvatures. they've been waiting for decades.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 11:30:12 UTC No. 16314901

>>16311031
Because you said so? What makes you think you are doing more than pumping out data?

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:02:13 UTC No. 16314929

>>16305261
While this is true, I asked copilot if it was capable of being deliberately funny, and it came up with

> why did the conspiracy theorist refuse to play hide and seek?
> because "they" are always watching

That's pretty fucking good for something that lacks consciousness, humour is abstract and ephemeral in any context, and yet it can emulate it very convincingly

A 90iq normie wouldn't be able to tell the difference